Why a Christian pastor was not given a burial spot in his village

For generations, the village of Chhindwada in Bastar, Chhattisgarh, had been home to the Mahra community — a tribal group that had witnessed some of its members embrace Christianity over time. Among them was Subhash Baghel, a third-generation Christian and a pastor since the 1980s. A man of faith, he had spent his life leading prayers in the village and guiding his community. But in death, he became the centre of a bitter conflict, one that laid bare the deep religious fractures within the village.On January 7, when Baghel died at home of age-related ailments, his son, Ramesh Baghel, assumed he would be buried alongside his ancestors in the village graveyard, where his grandfather and aunt had been laid to rest. But the moment the family tried to carry out the burial, they faced a wall of opposition. Villagers blocked them, refusing to let the funeral take place.Their reason?Baghel’s grandfather had converted to Christianity, and in their view, that meant he had forfeited his right to be buried in the same land as those who had followed the village’s old traditions.Tensions flared. Ramesh pleaded with the police and local authorities for protection, but instead of intervening, the police allegedly pressured the family to remove the body from the village. The gram panchayat offered no help either. With nowhere to turn, the family was forced to transport Baghel’s body to the mortuary at the District Hospital and Medical College in Jagdalpur. There it remained — for three weeks — as the family fought for the right to give him a dignified burial, escalating the matter all the way to the Supreme Court. medium117694447The son’s fight for justiceOn January 9, the gram panchayat of Barahpal-Chhindwada issued a formal certificate stating there was no designated burial ground for Christians in the village. This contradicted decades of past practice. Ramesh knew his grandfather (buried in 2007) and aunt (buried in 2015) had both been laid to rest in the same village graveyard.Determined to challenge this, Ramesh moved the Chhattisgarh High Court, filing a writ petition seeking:Permission to bury his father in the village graveyard’s Christian section.Police protection to ensure the burial could take place without interference.But on the same day — January 9 — the high court dismissed his plea. It ruled that the only officially designated burial ground for Christians was in Karkapal, a village 20-25km away, and that allowing the burial in Chhindwada could “cause unrest and disharmony”.Frustrated but unwilling to give up, Ramesh took the battle to the Supreme Court. On January 17, he filed an appeal challenging the high court’s ruling. Recognising the urgency of the case, the Supreme Court expedited hearings.On January 22, after hearing the final arguments, the Supreme Court reserved its judgment. But over the next five days, intense deliberations took place behind closed doors, with both justices analysing affidavits, legal precedents, and constitutional arguments before issuing their final verdict.At the heart of the case was a fundamental constitutional conflict:Was Ramesh Baghel being denied his religious rights and equal protection under the law?Or was the state justified in enforcing burial regulations and maintaining public order?During hearings, Ramesh’s counsel, Colin Gonsalves, argued that the state had failed in its constitutional duty by siding with the gram panchayat’s arbitrary decision. He presented evidence showing that Christian burials had taken place in Chhindwada for decades, including that of Ramesh’s grandfather and aunt.He further condemned the statement by the additional superintendent of police (ASP), Bastar, which had justified the exclusion of Christians from the village graveyard:“Any person who has forsworn the tradition of the community or has converted into a Christian is not allowed to be buried at the village graveyard.”Gonsalves called this a direct violation of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution, arguing that the state’s failure to protect religious minorities amounted to institutional discrimination.The state of Chhattisgarh, represented by solicitor general Tushar Mehta, defended the high court’s ruling. The state maintained that:The burial ground in Karkapal had been officially designated for Christians and was already in use.Allowing an exception in Chhindwada could set a dangerous precedent that disrupted existing regulations.The gram panchayat’s decision was legal, as the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, allowed burial only in designated sites. medium117690625Why the Supreme Court was splitOn January 27, the Supreme Court delivered its long-awaited verdict. The division bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma was split in its reasoning, reflecting two fundamentally different perspectives on constitutional rights and governance.Justice Nagarathna viewed the case as a clear instance of religious discrimination, while Justice Sharma saw it as a matter of legal consistency and public order. Their disagreement resulted in a compromise ruling, one that neither fully resolved the matter nor erased the pain of those who had fought for justice.For Justice Nagarathna, the case more than being about burial is about constitutional guarantees of equality and secularism. She condemned the gram panchayat’s refusal to allow pastor Baghel’s burial, calling it a violation of Articles 14 and 15(1) of the Constitution, which prohibit discrimination based on religion.She pointed out that Christian burials had taken place in Chhindwada for decades, and there was no legitimate reason to deny him the same dignity in death. The gram panchayat’s claim that there was no Christian burial ground in the village, she argued, was a last-minute bureaucratic manoeuvre to exclude an already marginalised community.But it was the statement made by the ASP who had justified the village’s refusal that she found most egregious. In her scathing response, she called this stance a betrayal of India’s secular principles. She reminded the court that secularism was not just a word in the Constitution but a guiding philosophy meant to foster fraternity and unity.Her ruling was clear and firm:Ramesh Baghel should be allowed to bury his father in Chhindwada.If not in the village graveyard, then on his privately owned agricultural land.“Death is a great leveller. But in this case, even in death, discrimination persists. The denial of burial in the village graveyard is nothing but a violation of constitutional rights, reflecting hostility and prejudice against a religious minority.”Justice Sharma acknowledged that burial rights were protected under Article 21 (Right to Dignity and Life) but insisted that this did not grant an absolute right to choose a burial site.Chhattisgarh had already designated 2.15 acres in Karkapal for Christian burials, and allowing an exception, he argued, would disrupt the legal framework meant to regulate such matters.Justice Sharma warned that allowing a burial in Chhindwada against the will of a significant section of the community could trigger unrest. The court’s role, he stated, was not to impose social harmony but to ensure that laws were applied consistently. Thus, he ruled: pastor Baghel must be buried in Karkapal. medium117690591How the court settled the matterWith the two judges at an impasse, the Supreme Court had to act swiftly. Referring the case to a larger bench would have caused further delays, prolonging the agony of the Baghel family, whose father’s body had been lying in a mortuary for more than three weeks. Instead, the court issued a compromise ruling:Pastor Baghel would be buried in Karkapal, as per Justice Sharma’s ruling.The Chhattisgarh government must provide logistical support, including an ambulance to transport the body from Jagdalpur to Karkapal.Police protection must be provided to ensure the burial proceeded without interference.The state was directed to formally demarcate burial grounds for Christians within two months, to prevent future disputes.On January 27, pastor Baghel was buried in Karkapal, in accordance with the Supreme Court’s directive. His remains were transported from the Jagdalpur mortuary under police protection, with the Chhattisgarh government providing logistical support, including an ambulance.However, tensions in Chhindwada persist, with reports of social ostracisation of Christian families. Some villagers have allegedly stopped purchasing from Christian-owned shops and refused to work in their fields.The Supreme Court’s ruling resolved the immediate burial dispute, but concerns remain over the broader implications for religious minorities facing similar exclusions. Asked a day after his father’s burial, Ramesh Baghel told the Indian Express: “It is not about my victory or defeat, it is a defeat for humanity.”Meanwhile, the state government has been directed to identify and formally demarcate burial grounds for Christians across Chhattisgarh within two months to prevent such conflicts in the future.Research by Rajesh Sharma